Usage frequency of anthroponyms in Yunus Emre’s and Gazi Burhaneddin’s “Divan”

This article presents a comparative linguistic and discourse-based analysis of the usage frequency and functional roles of anthroponyms (personal names) in the “Divans” of two prominent representatives of 13th–14th century Turkish literature — Yunus Emre and Gazi Burhaneddin. The study is grounded in the theoretical framework of onomastics and linguapoetics, where anthroponyms are regarded not only as nominative units but also as culturally and semantically loaded elements that contribute to the construction of poetic meaning. The relevance of the research lies in addressing the insufficiently explored issue of the quantitative distribution and functional differentiation of anthroponyms in classical Turkish poetic discourse. The research is based on a corpus of poetic texts extracted from authoritative editions of both poets’ “Divans.” A comprehensive set of methods is applied, including descriptive analysis for the classification of anthroponyms, quantitative analysis to determine their frequency of occurrence, comparative analysis to identify similarities and differences between the two poetic systems, and semantic-contextual analysis to interpret their symbolic and stylistic functions within the discourse. The results demonstrate that anthroponyms in both corpora function as key linguapoetic devices reflecting the religious, cultural, and ideological environment of the medieval period. In Yunus Emre’s “Divan,” anthroponyms are predominantly associated with Islamic prophets, saints, and Sufi figures, serving as symbols of spiritual purification, divine truth, and ethical values. These names contribute to the formation of a deeply mystical and didactic discourse, where each anthroponym carries a specific symbolic meaning (e.g., patience, sacrifice, love, or divine wisdom). In contrast, Gazi Burhaneddin’s “Divan” exhibits a broader and more diverse anthroponymic system, including not only religious figures but also characters from love and heroic epics such as Leyli and Majnun, Khosrov and Shirin, Rustam and Bahram Gur. In this context anthroponyms function as artistic archetypes representing ideal love, heroism, power, and social authority, which reflects the poet’s dual identity as both a ruler and a literary figure. The comparative analysis reveals both convergence and divergence in the use of anthroponyms. While both poets share a common reliance on religious anthroponyms rooted in Islamic tradition, their functional realizations differ: Yunus Emre employs them primarily within a mystical-symbolic paradigm, whereas Gazi Burhaneddin integrates them into a broader aesthetic and socio-political framework. Furthermore, anthroponyms in both “Divans” actively participate in metaphorical structuring, contributing to the creation of complex semantic networks and enhancing the expressive potential of poetic discourse. In conclusion, the study demonstrates that anthroponyms in classical Turkish poetry perform multifunctional roles that extend beyond identification, acting as carriers of cultural memory, symbolic meaning, and ideological values. Their frequency, distribution, and functional load are closely connected with the poets’ individual styles, thematic orientations, and the broader socio-cultural context of the period. The findings contribute to the fields of Turkology, onomastics, and discourse analysis, and may serve as a basis for further interdisciplinary research on the interaction between language, culture, and literary expression.